On the anniversary of 26/11, I got enlightened by seeing' Targetting Osama Bin Laden' on History channel. Was surprised to see that the US president authorized the hit despite only 40 % assurance level that the guy in the house was Osama. That means they themselves saw a 60% chance of things going horribly wrong. The 60% error rate was exclusively on the possibility of hitting the wrong guy. Other factors that could have led to operational failure were over and above these 60%. I would put the likelihood of failure due to a combination of all factors at 80%. President Obama knew it and still accepted it. Vow! That's some country.
The US raid was made possible not because of their technical superiority but their steely commitment to avenge killing of their people. Period.
At the same time, I also happened to be watching other TV channels where Indian leaders and TV anchors were merrily lambasting Pak and US ( Headley connection ) for the 26/11 in Mumbai. No one was talking of why Indian heads did not roll after the shocking negligence of our people at all levels. No one was talking of the fact that we always had 100 % confirmation of where the Pak handlers were staying for last 3 years, not just 40%! We have been telling the whole world that we know where these guys are. I think we would have done better to say that we do not know where these bums are and hence we are not able to take action against them but then, Indians never consider losing honour as a loss. The only loss we know happens on the Sensex.
Am absolutely ashamed of how my country refuses to stand by its people. If you ask for examples, a book can be written. It will have to start with the way we kept quiet when our BSF men were slaughtered on Bangladesh border and strung up on poles like animals. Years later, Lt Kalia tortured in Kargil and we just sent some letters of protest to Pak. Or did we? Am not too sure whether even that much happened. Those were not the days of Chidambaram's dossier wars, which came much later.
One more thing. Our people themselves do not complain unless something affects them personally. Honour in India only means killing our daughters who marry inside the community. No wonder, we have got the government we deserve.
Forget about avenging those who wee killed on 26/11, how about those who were wounded and expected the government to look after them? Read Indian Express Nov 26 Mumbai Newsline and you find examples of lack of govt support for future surgical operations, lack of follow up services leading to worsening of condition, private hospitals refusing to provide follow up treatment and other difficulties for wounded survivors. One concrete example - After being turned away from several hospitals and despite spending loads of money on travel and treatment, 26/11 victim, Fakir Mohd died of severe infection in his leg.
His only fault? Not having being born an American.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Parliamentarians represent their party or the parliament?
I have been thinking of the actions of the PM in which he clearly sought to be useful to his party at the expense of his country. I am referring to his decision to accept a lot of nonsense from ministers from the UPA alliance parties, only to prevent the UPA coalition from disintegrating and thus being of use to his party i.e. Congress. He is on record to mention 'coalitional dharma/politics'.
Was he right? Why fault him for being of use to his party? After all, he was put on this chair by his party!
No, he was wrong to have done what he did. Once placed on the PMs chair, he no longer represented the party. He only represented the nation.
In this debate, I'd like to quote Right Hon Edmund Berke in his speech to the electors of Bristol. Here goes -
'Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.'
Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774-11-03); as published in The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (1834)
What do you say?
Was he right? Why fault him for being of use to his party? After all, he was put on this chair by his party!
No, he was wrong to have done what he did. Once placed on the PMs chair, he no longer represented the party. He only represented the nation.
In this debate, I'd like to quote Right Hon Edmund Berke in his speech to the electors of Bristol. Here goes -
'Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.'
Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774-11-03); as published in The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (1834)
What do you say?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Can thieves not complain against theft?
The recent allegations of corruption against team Anna have got me thinking. The trigger was Shekhar Gupta’s ( Indian Express ) editorial. It made the point that those who are themselves corrupt have no right to spearhead any anti-corruption campaign.
I think Shekhar is mixing issues. One is the accountability of corrupt people for their act of corruption. The other is their right to seek a just system, regardless of their own proclivities.
I do not agree that thieves do not have a right to register a complaint against theft or seek to protect their houses against possible theft. The state can not restrict dispensation of justice only to the untarnished.
In the legal system, an attack on the reputation of the accused is NOT permitted, at least till the point where the law declares the accused to be guilty or not guilty. This provision is specifically to keep the issue of crime and reputation of the accused separate from each other.
During the team Anna campaign at Hissar, people quizzed them as to why they were indirectly campaigning for those who themselves had corruption cases pending against them. The reply was instant and clear. It was because those candidates had publicly backed the Lokpal bill. That means that they were willing to bring in a legislation which, if they continue with their corrupt ways in future too, will trap them viciously. So is the case with team Anna too. They are working to usher in a system which can punish them severely.
If team Anna had been seeking pardon for their alleged corrupt acts only because they are champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill, I would find fault with them. But not in this case. The good that can come out of their campaign can not be sacrificed just to smite them. Also, it would be illegal.
I think Shekhar is mixing issues. One is the accountability of corrupt people for their act of corruption. The other is their right to seek a just system, regardless of their own proclivities.
I do not agree that thieves do not have a right to register a complaint against theft or seek to protect their houses against possible theft. The state can not restrict dispensation of justice only to the untarnished.
In the legal system, an attack on the reputation of the accused is NOT permitted, at least till the point where the law declares the accused to be guilty or not guilty. This provision is specifically to keep the issue of crime and reputation of the accused separate from each other.
During the team Anna campaign at Hissar, people quizzed them as to why they were indirectly campaigning for those who themselves had corruption cases pending against them. The reply was instant and clear. It was because those candidates had publicly backed the Lokpal bill. That means that they were willing to bring in a legislation which, if they continue with their corrupt ways in future too, will trap them viciously. So is the case with team Anna too. They are working to usher in a system which can punish them severely.
If team Anna had been seeking pardon for their alleged corrupt acts only because they are champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill, I would find fault with them. But not in this case. The good that can come out of their campaign can not be sacrificed just to smite them. Also, it would be illegal.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Do not bail out the bums
There is a great post in DNA newspaper of 19 Oct 11. It is ' Yellowstone effect; Let's put our hands together and welcome crisis' by Chandni Burman. Read the full article. Is very instructive.
The article emphasizes - do not fight small fires. They are nature's way of eliminating rubbish and creating stability in systems. When you interfere with this system of natural selection, you may temporarily be able to put off fires but soon the whole system would blow up in your face.
The context is about should we bail out those financial institutions around the world ( mostly in Europe ) that seem to be doing badly, or should we let them die? More than the specifics, the philosophy propounded in the article is a great one.
The example given in the DNA lost goes like this.
In California, they strictly follow a 'zero-tolerance' approach towards forest fires. The moment even a small fire is sighted, someone rushes in to put it out. The result is that for long periods, there are no fire losses. On the contrary, neighbouring Baja California ( Mexico, I think ) has no such policy. So, every now and then, there are fire hazards and losses. But what is interesting is what matters in these two Californias, in the long run. In Baja California, there never is a really bad fire incident. In California, however, there are occasional major catastrophic fires, though few and far between.
The reason is that fires are an indispensable component of the natural dynamics that keep forests in that shape. Suppression of the periodic small fires drives the forests in an unnatural unstable state .... with high density of inflammable material (twigs, bark, leaves etc) strewn around ..... a single lightening strike or cigarette can make it explode in a mass fire.
Avoiding small problems creates greater systemic problems.
So, give disaster a chance. Don't bail out the bums.
The article emphasizes - do not fight small fires. They are nature's way of eliminating rubbish and creating stability in systems. When you interfere with this system of natural selection, you may temporarily be able to put off fires but soon the whole system would blow up in your face.
The context is about should we bail out those financial institutions around the world ( mostly in Europe ) that seem to be doing badly, or should we let them die? More than the specifics, the philosophy propounded in the article is a great one.
The example given in the DNA lost goes like this.
In California, they strictly follow a 'zero-tolerance' approach towards forest fires. The moment even a small fire is sighted, someone rushes in to put it out. The result is that for long periods, there are no fire losses. On the contrary, neighbouring Baja California ( Mexico, I think ) has no such policy. So, every now and then, there are fire hazards and losses. But what is interesting is what matters in these two Californias, in the long run. In Baja California, there never is a really bad fire incident. In California, however, there are occasional major catastrophic fires, though few and far between.
The reason is that fires are an indispensable component of the natural dynamics that keep forests in that shape. Suppression of the periodic small fires drives the forests in an unnatural unstable state .... with high density of inflammable material (twigs, bark, leaves etc) strewn around ..... a single lightening strike or cigarette can make it explode in a mass fire.
Avoiding small problems creates greater systemic problems.
So, give disaster a chance. Don't bail out the bums.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
No institutional capacity with government
Just been seeing an NDTV program in which the phrase'Institutional capacity' was used by some speaker. This phrase is exactly what I had been looking for. Heard it by mere coincidence, serendipity maybe.
Most of the times, the govt is quite indifferent towards the needs of the people, particularly the poor. However, in times of crises when terrorism, civil unrest, Naxalism, poverty etc become too pronounced, the govt does announce measures to tackle them. Still nothing works. This is so because over a period of time, the govt has not developed institutional capacity. The type of people they have placed in the govt machinery and the internal processes of the departments are so rotten that nothing works.
Once a footballer told me a story which can serve as an illustration of 'poor institutional capacity thwarting good intentions'. He told me, 'I saw the ball curving towards the goal while I was dashing across two defenders. My mind chalked out a perfect strategy and sent command to the brain - Dash a little faster for 3-4 seconds more, leap over the second defender, swerve violently to the right and slam the ball'. The tired body exclaimed, 'Who? Me?'
The govt is reaping the effects of a half century inaction towards building institutional capacity.
Most of the times, the govt is quite indifferent towards the needs of the people, particularly the poor. However, in times of crises when terrorism, civil unrest, Naxalism, poverty etc become too pronounced, the govt does announce measures to tackle them. Still nothing works. This is so because over a period of time, the govt has not developed institutional capacity. The type of people they have placed in the govt machinery and the internal processes of the departments are so rotten that nothing works.
Once a footballer told me a story which can serve as an illustration of 'poor institutional capacity thwarting good intentions'. He told me, 'I saw the ball curving towards the goal while I was dashing across two defenders. My mind chalked out a perfect strategy and sent command to the brain - Dash a little faster for 3-4 seconds more, leap over the second defender, swerve violently to the right and slam the ball'. The tired body exclaimed, 'Who? Me?'
The govt is reaping the effects of a half century inaction towards building institutional capacity.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Who is the real king of India
Once again, Anna's fresh approach has made me think.
A TV reporter recently asked him, 'If you are so keen on national issues, why don't you join politics and win an election. Then you can push your agenda legally'.
Anna corrected him none too gently. He said,' Obviously you believe that the 545 odd MPs are the only guys who control what laws must be made. The other 120 million or so Indians, busy in their daily chores, have no stakes in the country? Arre, we the 120 millions are the kings and we sent our 545 servants to sit as our spokesmen in parliament and do our bidding. It is not that we must do as they tell us to. They must say and do as we tell them. Don't get the pyramid wrong. Do you really want 120 millions to leave their jobs and join politics?'
Turns the present thinking on its head, no?
Most of us take the democratic system to be a modified version of the raja-praja ( ruler-ruled) system in which the MPs have replaced the rajas. Not so. The constitution starts with these words, 'We the people of India, give to ourselves this constitution -----'. It doesn't start as follows, 'We, the MPs of India give to the commoners this constitution ----'. On 15 Aug 1947, we all became kings of India. People alone are supreme.
Amazing guy,this Anna.
A TV reporter recently asked him, 'If you are so keen on national issues, why don't you join politics and win an election. Then you can push your agenda legally'.
Anna corrected him none too gently. He said,' Obviously you believe that the 545 odd MPs are the only guys who control what laws must be made. The other 120 million or so Indians, busy in their daily chores, have no stakes in the country? Arre, we the 120 millions are the kings and we sent our 545 servants to sit as our spokesmen in parliament and do our bidding. It is not that we must do as they tell us to. They must say and do as we tell them. Don't get the pyramid wrong. Do you really want 120 millions to leave their jobs and join politics?'
Turns the present thinking on its head, no?
Most of us take the democratic system to be a modified version of the raja-praja ( ruler-ruled) system in which the MPs have replaced the rajas. Not so. The constitution starts with these words, 'We the people of India, give to ourselves this constitution -----'. It doesn't start as follows, 'We, the MPs of India give to the commoners this constitution ----'. On 15 Aug 1947, we all became kings of India. People alone are supreme.
Amazing guy,this Anna.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Indian parliamentary democracy- systematically defiled
Why do I maintain that our much hyped parliamentary democracy is a colossal failure?
Well, today I have been hearing news of the recent SC verdict in Narendra Modi case ( Gulbarga society genocide ). In the debate on TV, I heard things that renewed two memories for me.
After/during the Sikh massacre post Indira Gandhi assassination, a Cong Leader quipped, ' When a big tree falls, the earth will tremble'
After/during the massacre of muslims post the Godhra massacre, Narendra Modi quipped, ' For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
Great leader exist in both major parties of India!
And both parties are doing well since these massacres and statements.Those who made these statements were neither lynched nor legally punished.If you ask these parties to justify the comments made by their leaders, they will undoubtedly say, 'Oh, he was only explaining a law of physics.'
Indian parliamentary democracy has given us no option but to select a ruler from either of these two parties.
Do you get it now?
Anna's movement may appear to be pro' anti-corruption' but it actually is anti ' Indian parliamentary democracy system'.
Well, today I have been hearing news of the recent SC verdict in Narendra Modi case ( Gulbarga society genocide ). In the debate on TV, I heard things that renewed two memories for me.
After/during the Sikh massacre post Indira Gandhi assassination, a Cong Leader quipped, ' When a big tree falls, the earth will tremble'
After/during the massacre of muslims post the Godhra massacre, Narendra Modi quipped, ' For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
Great leader exist in both major parties of India!
And both parties are doing well since these massacres and statements.Those who made these statements were neither lynched nor legally punished.If you ask these parties to justify the comments made by their leaders, they will undoubtedly say, 'Oh, he was only explaining a law of physics.'
Indian parliamentary democracy has given us no option but to select a ruler from either of these two parties.
Do you get it now?
Anna's movement may appear to be pro' anti-corruption' but it actually is anti ' Indian parliamentary democracy system'.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Do not help the government abdicate their responsibility
These days, the NDTV-Cocacola - Support my School campaign is pretty much on the air. While the idea of private parties pitching-in for development purposes is good, the methods adopted are not. Approach the beneficiaries but through the government, not directly.If you wish to give money, do so but route it through the govt.
Oh yes, I know that had the govt worked satisfactorily, there might be no need for private parties to pitch in. However, it would be better for the schools ( in the long run ) to have the govt work even if a bit better, than by getting one time doles.
Teach a hungry man to fish, rather than handing him a fish. How many times will you give him a fish?
A one percentage increase in the govt's ability/desire to improve schools will be more beneficial than 500 bathrooms created one time in schools by Cococola.Seeing someone else take over the duties legitimately theirs, the govt happily pulls out whatever little they were doing. Public private partnership projects should strengthen the public( and govt ) sector,not weaken it. At this rate, the people will soon be making roads, policing themselves and having armies of their own. Do you notice that most of these activities are increasingly coming under private domain in India. Is it happening like this in the US too? No, they force their govts to do the jobs assigned to them, rather than facilitate them getting off the hook.
If high profile guys like Sachin Tendulkar who support the NDTV-Cocacola campaign get after the govt to improve its functioning, it will get better.
But, then, the real aim of such campaigns is publicity and not improvement in schools!
Oh yes, I know that had the govt worked satisfactorily, there might be no need for private parties to pitch in. However, it would be better for the schools ( in the long run ) to have the govt work even if a bit better, than by getting one time doles.
Teach a hungry man to fish, rather than handing him a fish. How many times will you give him a fish?
A one percentage increase in the govt's ability/desire to improve schools will be more beneficial than 500 bathrooms created one time in schools by Cococola.Seeing someone else take over the duties legitimately theirs, the govt happily pulls out whatever little they were doing. Public private partnership projects should strengthen the public( and govt ) sector,not weaken it. At this rate, the people will soon be making roads, policing themselves and having armies of their own. Do you notice that most of these activities are increasingly coming under private domain in India. Is it happening like this in the US too? No, they force their govts to do the jobs assigned to them, rather than facilitate them getting off the hook.
If high profile guys like Sachin Tendulkar who support the NDTV-Cocacola campaign get after the govt to improve its functioning, it will get better.
But, then, the real aim of such campaigns is publicity and not improvement in schools!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Crorepati netas representing BPL janta?
The eligibility criterion to become an MP or MLA in India are clearly based on the need that they must fully identify with the constituency they represent.
There are two problems with the system created to opertionalise this need -
1. Our system for checking their 'identification' factor is inadequate. It considers only two parameters - residency within that constituency for a certain length of time and popularity. The raison-de-etre for checking the identification with your voters is surely to ensure that the legislator should truly understand the problems and aspirations of the constituency.If this be true,my question is this - how can our crorepati legislators understand the problems and aspirations of their voters when over 70% of voters live below poverty line? Can those with assets worth 260 crores really identify with the daily travails of those who subsist on Rs 20 per day? Jaake payar ne phati biwai, woh kya jaane pir parayi ( He who never felt a wound jeers at scars ). We in the army had a saying to describe such imposters,' far from the battlefield makes great soldiers'.
2. Besides the identification factor, there is a crying need for another ensuring factor too i.e. capability to discharge the functions of the job. Understanding the problems and aspirations of your voters is one part of the job. Being able to lead commitees/ projects and functioning as Heads of Ministries require more than the ability to identify with your voters. Among other things, it calls for intellectual ability, project management ability, strategic thinking ability etc. Get a novice HR manager t work on this and he will create a suitable competency list within a day. However, we do not have any such eligibility criterion. You may not have such criterion for purely the role of raising issues in the parliament/assembly but at least enforce it for those who get to become ministers.
Is it asking for too much?
There are two problems with the system created to opertionalise this need -
1. Our system for checking their 'identification' factor is inadequate. It considers only two parameters - residency within that constituency for a certain length of time and popularity. The raison-de-etre for checking the identification with your voters is surely to ensure that the legislator should truly understand the problems and aspirations of the constituency.If this be true,my question is this - how can our crorepati legislators understand the problems and aspirations of their voters when over 70% of voters live below poverty line? Can those with assets worth 260 crores really identify with the daily travails of those who subsist on Rs 20 per day? Jaake payar ne phati biwai, woh kya jaane pir parayi ( He who never felt a wound jeers at scars ). We in the army had a saying to describe such imposters,' far from the battlefield makes great soldiers'.
2. Besides the identification factor, there is a crying need for another ensuring factor too i.e. capability to discharge the functions of the job. Understanding the problems and aspirations of your voters is one part of the job. Being able to lead commitees/ projects and functioning as Heads of Ministries require more than the ability to identify with your voters. Among other things, it calls for intellectual ability, project management ability, strategic thinking ability etc. Get a novice HR manager t work on this and he will create a suitable competency list within a day. However, we do not have any such eligibility criterion. You may not have such criterion for purely the role of raising issues in the parliament/assembly but at least enforce it for those who get to become ministers.
Is it asking for too much?
Bad roads are a must for democracy to survive?
I am occasionally told that 'democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all others'. When I lament about anything even as non-controversial as potholes in Mumbai, I'm reminded mostly of two things -
1. Things move slowly in a democracy.
2. Thank democracy for giving you the right to even air your lament.
The upshot clearly is - roads will always be bad in a democracy. You need to choose between good roads and democracy. They are mutual exclusives. Also the Indian Catch 22 - 'You have right to complaint against bad roads. However, the government's answer to that complaint is that this is intentionally so, just to preserve your right to complaint against bad roads. So, just shut up. Look out for the next pothole on the road'.
Not only is the argument untrue, it is a churlish insult to my intelligence and powers of reasoning.
If bad roads and democracy are so inextricably interlinked, why are there good roads in the US? Do people in the US not get to complain?
Their next argument my well be - But US is not democracy!
I roll my eyes in exasperation ( is there some emoticon for that expression?)
1. Things move slowly in a democracy.
2. Thank democracy for giving you the right to even air your lament.
The upshot clearly is - roads will always be bad in a democracy. You need to choose between good roads and democracy. They are mutual exclusives. Also the Indian Catch 22 - 'You have right to complaint against bad roads. However, the government's answer to that complaint is that this is intentionally so, just to preserve your right to complaint against bad roads. So, just shut up. Look out for the next pothole on the road'.
Not only is the argument untrue, it is a churlish insult to my intelligence and powers of reasoning.
If bad roads and democracy are so inextricably interlinked, why are there good roads in the US? Do people in the US not get to complain?
Their next argument my well be - But US is not democracy!
I roll my eyes in exasperation ( is there some emoticon for that expression?)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The defence minister versus the army chief
I have already written that the most potent enemy the Indian army faces is the Indian defence ministry. The ministry is hell bent on destroying its own army. The defence minister's ruling to change the official age of the army chief is a case in point. Now that the army chief has filed a statutory complaint against the defence minister's decision, the point has been proved.
Do we even appreciate what has happened? The chief of Indian army has felt aggrieved enough by the decision of the defence minister to raise it officially! Could there be a worse situation than this? It is like the home minister revolting against the PM on a trivial issue and filing a case in the Supreme court!
Yes, the official age of an army official, irrespective of the rank of the official,is a trivial issue on the radar of the defence ministry. What was the need for the defence minister to give it so much importance? Why did the defence minister make his own army chief look like a liar and manipulator? Did he really expect the chief to take this insult lying down? If he had, he would have belied the army code of personal honour. After all, the army officers do not live by the code of the politicians and thank the good lord for that.
Before you argue that technically the defence minister is correct, let me add that my objection is not that his action is illegal. That question will be answered by the courts. I am questioning the wisdom of the action.
It is unwise to create a situation where you may have to publicly cross swords with your army chief. Would you much rather be right or useful ( to the country and army )? Does the defence minister not have even one sensible advisor who could foresee that the action of the defence ministry will force the army chief to go public. And what after that? Strategic sagacity largely depends on your ability to look three moves ahead. What moves did the defence minister envisage after making their own army chief look like a Mr 420?
Can the 'honest' defence minister not think beyond his nose? If so, how will he take strategic decisions in war? If he can't control even a simple interaction like this, how will he steer war scenarios to India's benefit?
If I were to choose between an honest but ineffective civil servant or politician, and a dishonest but effective one, I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter.
Reminds me of an episode of the American civil war. There was a general who was very effective but an alchoholic. His detractors complained of his drinking habits to the chief, who made this classic reply, ' Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I want to send several cartons of same to those who just sit on their backsides, drinking pure water.'
Get the point?
Do we even appreciate what has happened? The chief of Indian army has felt aggrieved enough by the decision of the defence minister to raise it officially! Could there be a worse situation than this? It is like the home minister revolting against the PM on a trivial issue and filing a case in the Supreme court!
Yes, the official age of an army official, irrespective of the rank of the official,is a trivial issue on the radar of the defence ministry. What was the need for the defence minister to give it so much importance? Why did the defence minister make his own army chief look like a liar and manipulator? Did he really expect the chief to take this insult lying down? If he had, he would have belied the army code of personal honour. After all, the army officers do not live by the code of the politicians and thank the good lord for that.
Before you argue that technically the defence minister is correct, let me add that my objection is not that his action is illegal. That question will be answered by the courts. I am questioning the wisdom of the action.
It is unwise to create a situation where you may have to publicly cross swords with your army chief. Would you much rather be right or useful ( to the country and army )? Does the defence minister not have even one sensible advisor who could foresee that the action of the defence ministry will force the army chief to go public. And what after that? Strategic sagacity largely depends on your ability to look three moves ahead. What moves did the defence minister envisage after making their own army chief look like a Mr 420?
Can the 'honest' defence minister not think beyond his nose? If so, how will he take strategic decisions in war? If he can't control even a simple interaction like this, how will he steer war scenarios to India's benefit?
If I were to choose between an honest but ineffective civil servant or politician, and a dishonest but effective one, I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter.
Reminds me of an episode of the American civil war. There was a general who was very effective but an alchoholic. His detractors complained of his drinking habits to the chief, who made this classic reply, ' Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I want to send several cartons of same to those who just sit on their backsides, drinking pure water.'
Get the point?
Friday, August 26, 2011
The allegations against Anna team
In the last few days, I have been reading a lot of angry comments against theatrics and anti-'parliamentary democratic institutions' acts by Anna team. A lot of parliamentarians of good repute e.g. Salman Khursheed are representing the government. So,the reader is forced to question the Anna team allegation that most parliamentarians are 'unpudhs ( illiterate ) and 'ganwars ( country bumpkins ). The uncivil language of the civil society has become their Achille's heal.
I have been seriously thinking about this.
Raising objections against theatrics and the uncivil language of the team is as churlish and trivial as it can get. Both these are 'bad' acts, no doubt. But just see things is perspective, in proportion. The 'bad' acts have been done in such small degree that trying to use them as counterweights to the good that they are doing is simply outrageous. Even the moon has a blemish.
What has been team Anna's achievement which is sought to be cancelled out by these random 'bad' acts?
They have managed to force the government to now support a really strict Lokpal bill, after rejecting other bills 8 times in the past which was were not even one tenth as powerful as this one! Do you see the enormity of what these guys have done. In one stroke they have outwitted the evil attempts of the combined strength of at least 8 parliaments. That's colossal. In my son's American terminology, that's awesome.
The government must be kicking itself in the head for not having passed the weak bills in the past.
And what about the suave and genteel Salman Khursheed, the erudite Somnath Chatterjee and the really 'honest & humble' Manmohan Singh?
These guys are god guys but what have they done in the last 40 years to cleanse public platforms of Laloo Yadavs, Amar Singhs and the A Rajas? Nothing at all. These good guys have all supported the bad guys for their selfish motives ( ensuring benefits for their party at the expense of cleansing public platform IS a selfish act surely ). They did not do this public service for 40 years so how are they so blameless? Being suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble is not what we put you there for. We put you there to help us, which you didn't.
And do not say that it can not be done.
A 74 year old ex sepoy with no official power, could do it with just a handful of planners. Never before have so many owed so much to so few.
So, the suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble ministers - please see where you stand in the glare of history. You have failed yourself.
I have been seriously thinking about this.
Raising objections against theatrics and the uncivil language of the team is as churlish and trivial as it can get. Both these are 'bad' acts, no doubt. But just see things is perspective, in proportion. The 'bad' acts have been done in such small degree that trying to use them as counterweights to the good that they are doing is simply outrageous. Even the moon has a blemish.
What has been team Anna's achievement which is sought to be cancelled out by these random 'bad' acts?
They have managed to force the government to now support a really strict Lokpal bill, after rejecting other bills 8 times in the past which was were not even one tenth as powerful as this one! Do you see the enormity of what these guys have done. In one stroke they have outwitted the evil attempts of the combined strength of at least 8 parliaments. That's colossal. In my son's American terminology, that's awesome.
The government must be kicking itself in the head for not having passed the weak bills in the past.
And what about the suave and genteel Salman Khursheed, the erudite Somnath Chatterjee and the really 'honest & humble' Manmohan Singh?
These guys are god guys but what have they done in the last 40 years to cleanse public platforms of Laloo Yadavs, Amar Singhs and the A Rajas? Nothing at all. These good guys have all supported the bad guys for their selfish motives ( ensuring benefits for their party at the expense of cleansing public platform IS a selfish act surely ). They did not do this public service for 40 years so how are they so blameless? Being suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble is not what we put you there for. We put you there to help us, which you didn't.
And do not say that it can not be done.
A 74 year old ex sepoy with no official power, could do it with just a handful of planners. Never before have so many owed so much to so few.
So, the suave, genteel, erudite, honest & humble ministers - please see where you stand in the glare of history. You have failed yourself.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Parliamentary democracy or undemocratic parliamentarians?
Government's most powerful objection to team Anna's movement, ' isn't this negating all that parliamentary democracy stand for?'. Really difficult to counter.
But there is catch. The question is cleverly framed but is not reflective of the ground realities.
Who can question parliamentary democracy, which is the most laudable theory. But you can surely question the people that today run parliamentary democracy in India. If the drivers of that lovely theory were as laudable as the theory itself, there would be no Anna phenomenon. Not even hundred guys will visit Anna doing anashan and he will die hungry, incognito.
So, do not throw in my face what parliamentary democracy is supposed to mean. See through what it has actually become in India.
Did you know that Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh will be voting on the anti corruption bill? That is what parliamentary democracy has become.
Do you realize that your PM has not been elected directly by the people? From amongst those who are directly elected, we couldn't find one good enough to lead the nation. That is what parliamentary democracy has become in India.
No one is questioning parliamentary democracy. We are questioning our leaders who have shamed parliamentary democracy.
But there is catch. The question is cleverly framed but is not reflective of the ground realities.
Who can question parliamentary democracy, which is the most laudable theory. But you can surely question the people that today run parliamentary democracy in India. If the drivers of that lovely theory were as laudable as the theory itself, there would be no Anna phenomenon. Not even hundred guys will visit Anna doing anashan and he will die hungry, incognito.
So, do not throw in my face what parliamentary democracy is supposed to mean. See through what it has actually become in India.
Did you know that Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh will be voting on the anti corruption bill? That is what parliamentary democracy has become.
Do you realize that your PM has not been elected directly by the people? From amongst those who are directly elected, we couldn't find one good enough to lead the nation. That is what parliamentary democracy has become in India.
No one is questioning parliamentary democracy. We are questioning our leaders who have shamed parliamentary democracy.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Elected representatives, my foot!
The main objection to Anna's views is invariably this - after all, the parliamentarians are genuinely elected representatives of the people, while Anna team is not.
The point can not be faulted on factual grounds.
However, it raises the greater question that our system of elected representatives has failed. Miserably.
I attended the Thane rally of Anna. Seeing the crowd first hand,I am even more convinced that the people are against whatever our elected representatives stand for.
One simple fact - In the standing committee of parliament, it is Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh who will have their say on the anti-corruption bill.Vow.
Neither the parliament, nor the constitution is supreme. People are supreme. The constitution opens with these shattering words, 'We, the people of India, -----'
In any case, the time for debates and dialogues is over. It is action time. It took an army soldier to teach these parliamentarians the value of action over debate.
Why explain? Millions following Anna are explanation enough.Someone quipped, ' But this is dictatorship of the masses'. Arvind Kejriwal ( May his tribe increase ) replied, ' dictatorship of masses ( unless it is for an illegal cause ) is what is called democracy'.
How right.
The movement is not about the Jan Lokpal bill alone. It is about how unrepresentative our elected representatives are.
The point can not be faulted on factual grounds.
However, it raises the greater question that our system of elected representatives has failed. Miserably.
I attended the Thane rally of Anna. Seeing the crowd first hand,I am even more convinced that the people are against whatever our elected representatives stand for.
One simple fact - In the standing committee of parliament, it is Laloo Yadav and Amar Singh who will have their say on the anti-corruption bill.Vow.
Neither the parliament, nor the constitution is supreme. People are supreme. The constitution opens with these shattering words, 'We, the people of India, -----'
In any case, the time for debates and dialogues is over. It is action time. It took an army soldier to teach these parliamentarians the value of action over debate.
Why explain? Millions following Anna are explanation enough.Someone quipped, ' But this is dictatorship of the masses'. Arvind Kejriwal ( May his tribe increase ) replied, ' dictatorship of masses ( unless it is for an illegal cause ) is what is called democracy'.
How right.
The movement is not about the Jan Lokpal bill alone. It is about how unrepresentative our elected representatives are.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Anna speak - I agree
What is the essence of Anna speak.
1. Present systems says 'select good guys as your representative. Having done so, rely on their goodness. Treat them like infallible demi-gods'.
2. Anna concept says - 'Do not bother too much on the goodness aspect of your representatives. Have an accountability system and a process which forces the representatives to behave, irrespective of their 'goodness factor'.
Anna system is a process based system, the other one is not.
Any election system, particularly one that deals with Indians conditions, will always throw up 'bad' guys in power. Given this fact, the sensible way is to look for power of process rather than power of goodness of leaders.
A lot of problem are nitpicking with the methods and some statements of Anna team. Come on, don't be churlish. Don't miss the woods for the trees.
Anna, or individuals representing him, are nobody. The concept and solution they have thrown up are everything. If after so much support, some people are still not convinced that this is it, God save them.
And stop comparing Anna with Gandhi and feeling smug when you are able to prove that Anna is no Gandhi.Of course, not. For one thing, Anna's name starts A, while Gandhi's starts with G!
Comparisons are odious and also irrelevant when studying the contributions by either.Gandhi and Anna are two people, at two different times in two different environments.
1. Present systems says 'select good guys as your representative. Having done so, rely on their goodness. Treat them like infallible demi-gods'.
2. Anna concept says - 'Do not bother too much on the goodness aspect of your representatives. Have an accountability system and a process which forces the representatives to behave, irrespective of their 'goodness factor'.
Anna system is a process based system, the other one is not.
Any election system, particularly one that deals with Indians conditions, will always throw up 'bad' guys in power. Given this fact, the sensible way is to look for power of process rather than power of goodness of leaders.
A lot of problem are nitpicking with the methods and some statements of Anna team. Come on, don't be churlish. Don't miss the woods for the trees.
Anna, or individuals representing him, are nobody. The concept and solution they have thrown up are everything. If after so much support, some people are still not convinced that this is it, God save them.
And stop comparing Anna with Gandhi and feeling smug when you are able to prove that Anna is no Gandhi.Of course, not. For one thing, Anna's name starts A, while Gandhi's starts with G!
Comparisons are odious and also irrelevant when studying the contributions by either.Gandhi and Anna are two people, at two different times in two different environments.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
How to destroy your own army
The Defence ministry decision that the date of birth of the army chief needs to be changed in the records is just another example of the cavalier manner in which the govt treats army and its chiefs. It is simply ridiculous.Why is the Indian govt hell bent on destroying the morale of its own army? Beats me, completely. Why don't they leave it to ISI? The country should also know that last year the SC upheld its order that successive pay commissions have fixed the army pay wrongly in terms of the rank pay and hence the govt must pay the dues now. Instead of cheering the SC order which would give the govt a chance to legitimately pay some money to its army officers, they have gone in for an appeal! Besides the govt, the Indian public too is grossly guilty of indifference. The army, which is called out even when there is a simple house collapse in Ghaziabad is being treated so shabbily by all. Wonder if I did the right thing by risking my life for 27 years for these very guys.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
I am Anna
Indian Express editorial ( Carnival Society- 7 April ) flays the unrepresentative nature of the Anna movement. Technically, they are right. But, then, technically speaking, it can never be the case that legislators fairly elected from a population work against the interests of that population itself. However, it is so.
So, question the technicality.
Look dispassionately at the Anna wave. Firstly, the numbers may not be as large as those of the Jat movement, but look at the diversity and the methods adopted. Secondly, look at the rate of growth of the movement. Thirdly, the content of what Anna is demanding has still not been publicly opposed by anyone maybe only the form. It is true that some people in the crowd did not know the exact details of the proposed Lokpal bill, but even in their ignorance they were making an 'anti corruption,anti status-quo' point. Or weren't they?
The Anna movement clearly demolishes the success of the existing system to choose legislators who actually legislate for the good of their people. That much is now well established.
So, question the technicality.
Look dispassionately at the Anna wave. Firstly, the numbers may not be as large as those of the Jat movement, but look at the diversity and the methods adopted. Secondly, look at the rate of growth of the movement. Thirdly, the content of what Anna is demanding has still not been publicly opposed by anyone maybe only the form. It is true that some people in the crowd did not know the exact details of the proposed Lokpal bill, but even in their ignorance they were making an 'anti corruption,anti status-quo' point. Or weren't they?
The Anna movement clearly demolishes the success of the existing system to choose legislators who actually legislate for the good of their people. That much is now well established.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Play dice with life - and feel the ultimate pleasure
In the past, I have written at my post career revulsion at soldiers being hired guns. How did that idea ever come to me, a professional soldier. After so many decades, it became clear to me that PERHAPS it came to me as a result of my reading of the following pages for THE MAGUS by John Fowles -
He stood up.
"I have a test for you."
"A test?"
He went into his bedroom, returned almost at once with the oil lamp that had been on the table when we had dinner. In the white pool of light he put what he had brought. I saw a die, a shaker, a saucer, and a pillbox. I looked up at him on the other side of the table, at his severe eyes on mine.
"I am going to explain to you why we went to war. Why mankind always goes to war. It is not social or political. It is not countries that go to war, but men. It is like salt. Once one has been to war, one has salt for the rest of one's life. Do you understand?"
"Of course."
"So in my perfect republic it would be simple. There would be a test for all young people at the age of twenty-one. They would go to a hospital where they would throw a die. One of the six numbers would mean death. If they threw that they would be painlessly killed. No mess. No bestial cruelty. No destruction of innocent onlookers. But one clinical throw of the die."
"Certainly an improvement on war."
"You think so?"
"Obviously."
"You are sure?"
"Of course."
"You said you never saw action in the last war?"
"No."
He took the pillbox, and shook out, of all things, six large molars; yellowish, two or three with old fillings.
"These were issued to certain German troops during the last war, for use if they were interrogated." He placed one of the teeth on the saucer, then with a small downward jab of the shaker crushed it; it was brittle, like a liqueur chocolate. But the odor of the colorless liquid was of bitter almonds, acrid and terrifying. He hastily removed the saucer at arm's length to the far corner of the terrace; then returned.
"Suicide pills?"
"Precisely. Hydrocyanic acid." He picked up the die, and showed me six sides.
I smiled. "You want me to throw?"
"I offer you an entire war in one second."
"Supposing I don't want it?"
"Think. In a minute from now you could be saying, I risked death. I threw for life, and I won life. It is a very wonderful feeling. To have survived."
"Wouldn't a corpse be rather embarrassing for you?" I was still smiling, but it was wearing thin.
"Not at all. I could easily prove it was suicide." He stared at me, and his eyes went through me like a trident through a fish. With ninety-nine persons out of a hundred, I would have known it was a bluff; but he was different, and a nervousness had hold of me before I could resist it.
"Russian roulette."
"But less fallible. These pills work within a few seconds."
"I don't want to play."
"Then you are a coward, my friend." He leant back and watched me.
"I thought you believed brave men were fools."
"Because they persist in rolling the die again and again. But a young man who will not risk his life even once is both a fool and a coward."
And he had me. It was absurd, but I could not let my bluff be called.
I reached for the shaker.
"Wait." He leant forward, and put his hand on my wrist; then placed a tooth by my side. "I am not playing at make-believe. You must swear to me that if the number is six you will take the pill." His face was totally serious. I felt myself wanting to swallow.
"I swear."
"By all that is most sacred to you."
I hesitated, shrugged, and said, "By all that is most sacred to me."
He held out the die and I put it in the shaker. I shook it loosely and quickly and threw the die. It ran over the cloth, hit the brass base of the lamp, rebounded, wavered, fell.
It was a six.
Conchis was absolutely motionless, watching me. I knew at once that I was never, never going to pick up the pill. I could not look at him. Perhaps fifteen seconds passed. Then I smiled, looked at him and shook my head.
He reached out again, his eyes still on me, took the tooth beside me, put it in his mouth and bit it and swallowed the liquid. I went red. Still watching me, he reached out, and put the die in the shaker, and threw it. It was a six. Then again. And again it was a six. He spat out the empty shell of the tooth.
"What you have just decided is precisely what I decided that morning forty years ago at Neuve Chapelle. You have behaved exactly as any intelligent human being should behave. I congratulate you."
"But what you said? The perfect republic?"
"All perfect republics are perfect nonsense. The craving to risk death is our last great perversion. We come from night, we go into night. Why live in night?"
"But the die was loaded."
"Patriotism, propaganda, professional honor, esprit de corps — what are all those things? Cogged dice."
I don't know why it took so many years for the effect to take place. Somehow, the stupidity of any sense of nobility in dying for your country got to me - after almost three decades though.
He stood up.
"I have a test for you."
"A test?"
He went into his bedroom, returned almost at once with the oil lamp that had been on the table when we had dinner. In the white pool of light he put what he had brought. I saw a die, a shaker, a saucer, and a pillbox. I looked up at him on the other side of the table, at his severe eyes on mine.
"I am going to explain to you why we went to war. Why mankind always goes to war. It is not social or political. It is not countries that go to war, but men. It is like salt. Once one has been to war, one has salt for the rest of one's life. Do you understand?"
"Of course."
"So in my perfect republic it would be simple. There would be a test for all young people at the age of twenty-one. They would go to a hospital where they would throw a die. One of the six numbers would mean death. If they threw that they would be painlessly killed. No mess. No bestial cruelty. No destruction of innocent onlookers. But one clinical throw of the die."
"Certainly an improvement on war."
"You think so?"
"Obviously."
"You are sure?"
"Of course."
"You said you never saw action in the last war?"
"No."
He took the pillbox, and shook out, of all things, six large molars; yellowish, two or three with old fillings.
"These were issued to certain German troops during the last war, for use if they were interrogated." He placed one of the teeth on the saucer, then with a small downward jab of the shaker crushed it; it was brittle, like a liqueur chocolate. But the odor of the colorless liquid was of bitter almonds, acrid and terrifying. He hastily removed the saucer at arm's length to the far corner of the terrace; then returned.
"Suicide pills?"
"Precisely. Hydrocyanic acid." He picked up the die, and showed me six sides.
I smiled. "You want me to throw?"
"I offer you an entire war in one second."
"Supposing I don't want it?"
"Think. In a minute from now you could be saying, I risked death. I threw for life, and I won life. It is a very wonderful feeling. To have survived."
"Wouldn't a corpse be rather embarrassing for you?" I was still smiling, but it was wearing thin.
"Not at all. I could easily prove it was suicide." He stared at me, and his eyes went through me like a trident through a fish. With ninety-nine persons out of a hundred, I would have known it was a bluff; but he was different, and a nervousness had hold of me before I could resist it.
"Russian roulette."
"But less fallible. These pills work within a few seconds."
"I don't want to play."
"Then you are a coward, my friend." He leant back and watched me.
"I thought you believed brave men were fools."
"Because they persist in rolling the die again and again. But a young man who will not risk his life even once is both a fool and a coward."
And he had me. It was absurd, but I could not let my bluff be called.
I reached for the shaker.
"Wait." He leant forward, and put his hand on my wrist; then placed a tooth by my side. "I am not playing at make-believe. You must swear to me that if the number is six you will take the pill." His face was totally serious. I felt myself wanting to swallow.
"I swear."
"By all that is most sacred to you."
I hesitated, shrugged, and said, "By all that is most sacred to me."
He held out the die and I put it in the shaker. I shook it loosely and quickly and threw the die. It ran over the cloth, hit the brass base of the lamp, rebounded, wavered, fell.
It was a six.
Conchis was absolutely motionless, watching me. I knew at once that I was never, never going to pick up the pill. I could not look at him. Perhaps fifteen seconds passed. Then I smiled, looked at him and shook my head.
He reached out again, his eyes still on me, took the tooth beside me, put it in his mouth and bit it and swallowed the liquid. I went red. Still watching me, he reached out, and put the die in the shaker, and threw it. It was a six. Then again. And again it was a six. He spat out the empty shell of the tooth.
"What you have just decided is precisely what I decided that morning forty years ago at Neuve Chapelle. You have behaved exactly as any intelligent human being should behave. I congratulate you."
"But what you said? The perfect republic?"
"All perfect republics are perfect nonsense. The craving to risk death is our last great perversion. We come from night, we go into night. Why live in night?"
"But the die was loaded."
"Patriotism, propaganda, professional honor, esprit de corps — what are all those things? Cogged dice."
I don't know why it took so many years for the effect to take place. Somehow, the stupidity of any sense of nobility in dying for your country got to me - after almost three decades though.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Indian Generalship
Recent cases against some Indian army generals are becoming hot news suddenly. However, a slide of this magnitude never happens suddenly or by accident. Like many life threatening diseases, its symptoms surface every now and then but are either not noticed or are brushed under the carpet. Finally, they explode in our face.
The book 'Mask of command' explains how like warfare itself, generalship is a cultural enterprise, providing a key to understanding a particular era or place. John Keegan propounds the view of heroism in warfare as inextricably linked with the political imperative of the age and place. He demonstrates how the role of the general alters with the ethos of the society that creates him.
Indian generalship is only reflecting the political imperatives and societal ethos that commenced in 1947.
It started in 62 itself, where Gen Kaul was a nothing but a political stooge. We lost the war because of that but hid the Henderson Brooks enquiry report from public scrutiny. Thereafter, we had 1965 where the then Chief recommended cease fire to the PM on the basis that we had almost finished our ammo which was nowhere the case. After this came to light, no action was taken against anyone. 1971 did see a new era but operation Bluestar soon followed it. There we had the shameful incident of a General ordering his troops to attack machine gun posts barefooted, forbidden to fire in a certain direction. How he accepted such political interference in conduct and methodology of operations was never questioned by anyone. On the contrary, he went on to be army Chief in his time. Thereafter we had the operations in SriLanka which were run more by the High Commissioner ( Dixit ) than by the army generals. As a consequence, we saw ragtag band of LTTE men merrily attacking units of Indian army that boasted of golden jubilees and centenaries. The army still did not protest. That further emboldened the political masters which eventually led to the politically expedient but militarily expensive frontal assaults of Kargil.
Since that too was not contested by anyone, the moral decline began.
We are only seeing the coming of age of a disease that started long back when political imperatives and societal ethos changed in 1947. This decline is purely of swadeshi ( home grown )origins, a sad but inevitable effect of Indianism.
The book 'Mask of command' explains how like warfare itself, generalship is a cultural enterprise, providing a key to understanding a particular era or place. John Keegan propounds the view of heroism in warfare as inextricably linked with the political imperative of the age and place. He demonstrates how the role of the general alters with the ethos of the society that creates him.
Indian generalship is only reflecting the political imperatives and societal ethos that commenced in 1947.
It started in 62 itself, where Gen Kaul was a nothing but a political stooge. We lost the war because of that but hid the Henderson Brooks enquiry report from public scrutiny. Thereafter, we had 1965 where the then Chief recommended cease fire to the PM on the basis that we had almost finished our ammo which was nowhere the case. After this came to light, no action was taken against anyone. 1971 did see a new era but operation Bluestar soon followed it. There we had the shameful incident of a General ordering his troops to attack machine gun posts barefooted, forbidden to fire in a certain direction. How he accepted such political interference in conduct and methodology of operations was never questioned by anyone. On the contrary, he went on to be army Chief in his time. Thereafter we had the operations in SriLanka which were run more by the High Commissioner ( Dixit ) than by the army generals. As a consequence, we saw ragtag band of LTTE men merrily attacking units of Indian army that boasted of golden jubilees and centenaries. The army still did not protest. That further emboldened the political masters which eventually led to the politically expedient but militarily expensive frontal assaults of Kargil.
Since that too was not contested by anyone, the moral decline began.
We are only seeing the coming of age of a disease that started long back when political imperatives and societal ethos changed in 1947. This decline is purely of swadeshi ( home grown )origins, a sad but inevitable effect of Indianism.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Soldiers are hired guns - hired by questionable MPs
Is being a hired gun a good idea?
A soldier is essentially a hired gun. Hired by the state, but hired all the same. He kills, as told.
In my youth, being a soldier seemed something to be proud of. To be chosen to kill on behalf of the society, the country, the President of India was a badge of honour. Today,I am not so sure. Shorn of all big words,essentially my authority to kill stemmed from the MPs, particularly those of the cabinet. Is there a system to ensure, or even a lame attempt, to ensure that all MPs are good men? Earlier, I either believed so or did not bother. A more experienced man at 57 years, I can now say - They certainly are NOT so. Just look at the news of last 6 months and you'll find out. Should I have killed on Kalmadi's word, or those of A Raja?
Some years back, should I have killed others on the dictates of Phoolan Devi.
All that MPs can claim is that they are popular people. So,I have been proud of having the right to kill on orders of people who were not necessarily right, good, wise or blameless - only people who were popular? If a crowd told me to kill, should I?
The dilemma is also posed in the book/movie - The Day of the Jackal - 'Mercenaries too kill- but at least they themselves choose who to kill'.
Soldiers seem happy handing over this huge responsibility to people who have no known qualification to do so except being popular. In contrast, see the deliberations by judges and the legal system before death sentence is passed even for one individual. And everyone in that system is so qualified.
So, why be proud of being a hired gun - hired by guys who could well be goons.
A soldier is essentially a hired gun. Hired by the state, but hired all the same. He kills, as told.
In my youth, being a soldier seemed something to be proud of. To be chosen to kill on behalf of the society, the country, the President of India was a badge of honour. Today,I am not so sure. Shorn of all big words,essentially my authority to kill stemmed from the MPs, particularly those of the cabinet. Is there a system to ensure, or even a lame attempt, to ensure that all MPs are good men? Earlier, I either believed so or did not bother. A more experienced man at 57 years, I can now say - They certainly are NOT so. Just look at the news of last 6 months and you'll find out. Should I have killed on Kalmadi's word, or those of A Raja?
Some years back, should I have killed others on the dictates of Phoolan Devi.
All that MPs can claim is that they are popular people. So,I have been proud of having the right to kill on orders of people who were not necessarily right, good, wise or blameless - only people who were popular? If a crowd told me to kill, should I?
The dilemma is also posed in the book/movie - The Day of the Jackal - 'Mercenaries too kill- but at least they themselves choose who to kill'.
Soldiers seem happy handing over this huge responsibility to people who have no known qualification to do so except being popular. In contrast, see the deliberations by judges and the legal system before death sentence is passed even for one individual. And everyone in that system is so qualified.
So, why be proud of being a hired gun - hired by guys who could well be goons.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Defence is a non-issue in India
NDTV broadcast an interesting program on 7 Jan 11 evening - Dead (ly) weapons. The program showcased the terrible state of the weapons with our defence forces. It made clear to anyone who cares that Indian defence capability is severely handicapped by lack of modern weapons. As an ex army officer, I always had the dilemma as to why no one cares about this?
Why are the citizens more bothered about loss of money in scams than in the vulnerability of their country? My question was answered towards the close of the program. An ex IAF Chief, who had lamented the sorry state of air weapons throughout the program, assured the country that this lack of preparedness notwithstanding, we will not allow a repeat of 62 ( it is another thing that the IAF was not used in 62, which was a grave error). He guaranteed it. An ex army chief, too, spoke highly of the morale of the army. Hearing this, my dilemma cleared. If two ex chiefs go on record to say that India is safe despite this state of weaponry, why bother?
The fig leaf had been provided.
My take is - we are relying too heavily on the raw courage of our youngsters which can last but 14 days. Just that many to die needlessly. In military history, there is a quote - 'Do not use my men where you can use artillery'. Obviously, the quote could not have come from an Indian General.
The fact is that, overall, we are in a terrible state militarily. Such a shocking state of artillery, submarines and aircrafts should be more unacceptable to a nation than any number of money scams. Even with our known adversaries, we can no longer guarantee success in all scenarios. If we do succeed, it will be at unacceptable cost of human lives. And in case we have to cross swords with a really modern army, we simply had it. No ifs and buts.
Hey, I have just found a humorous analogy for our FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail! My country's defence is at stake. Quick, let me bother about money scams!
Why are the citizens more bothered about loss of money in scams than in the vulnerability of their country? My question was answered towards the close of the program. An ex IAF Chief, who had lamented the sorry state of air weapons throughout the program, assured the country that this lack of preparedness notwithstanding, we will not allow a repeat of 62 ( it is another thing that the IAF was not used in 62, which was a grave error). He guaranteed it. An ex army chief, too, spoke highly of the morale of the army. Hearing this, my dilemma cleared. If two ex chiefs go on record to say that India is safe despite this state of weaponry, why bother?
The fig leaf had been provided.
My take is - we are relying too heavily on the raw courage of our youngsters which can last but 14 days. Just that many to die needlessly. In military history, there is a quote - 'Do not use my men where you can use artillery'. Obviously, the quote could not have come from an Indian General.
The fact is that, overall, we are in a terrible state militarily. Such a shocking state of artillery, submarines and aircrafts should be more unacceptable to a nation than any number of money scams. Even with our known adversaries, we can no longer guarantee success in all scenarios. If we do succeed, it will be at unacceptable cost of human lives. And in case we have to cross swords with a really modern army, we simply had it. No ifs and buts.
Hey, I have just found a humorous analogy for our FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail! My country's defence is at stake. Quick, let me bother about money scams!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
